American companies operating in the People's Republic have Communist Party committees, too.

Darley Shen/Reuters

After two of China's telecom behemoths endured a very public smack down at the hands of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Chinese web users are standing up -- or at least tweeting -- in defense.

An October 8 House report held that Huawei and ZTE "failed to provide evidence that would satisfy any fair and full investigation" into their ties to Chinese intelligence-gathering operations, and recommended that both U.S. government entities and private enterprises avoid doing business with the two given "long-term security risks."

On Sina Weibo, China's Twitter, Internet users appeared to reach rapid consensus that the setback for Huawei and ZTE manifested a "double standard" that demanded a proportional response. Commenters argued that the House report was nothing more than an exercise in realpolitik, what @ DominateL called "trade protectionism in disguise." @友为99 sighed, "The U.S. is just being the U.S.; they only think of protectionism. Everything is a threat to their national security." @ 隆中赋 complained, "For a country that opposes the United States, every business from that country has the possibility of being a spy."

Chinese media have named other companies, including brands as diverse as Carrefour, Standard Chartered Bank, Nokia Siemens, Hyundai, and Canon among those that have formed Communist Party committees in their China operations, some dating back to the 1990′s. In theory, every company with more than three Communist Party members is required to have a Party committee. This article from Southern Weekly, a Chinese newspaper, quotes an American executive who wondered, "We have three Republicans. Can we apply to form a 'Republican Party Committee'?" And this fascinating article from Global Times points out that as of August 2012, 486 Party branches have been set up in foreign enterprises based in Shanghai alone, consisting of about 10,000 Party members.

Foreign corporations seem to have come around to the notion that having a "party committee" is necessary to navigate China's highly political business environment. According to the same report in Southern Weekly, Nokia Siemens' Shanghai branch secured a government subsidy of more than RMB10 million (approximately US$1.7 million) through the efforts of its executive vice president and Communist Party secretary, Huang Junjian.

If foreign companies in China are increasingly hip to the need to cozy with Communists, Chinese citizens are increasingly aware of their power as consumers. With few near-term policy options available to China's government to respond to Huawei and ZTE's setback, Web users quickly circulated calls for Chinese consumers to "boycott Apple," and even American-made goods in general. Many others exhorted the Chinese government to investigate whether Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, and other American corporations with footprints in China posed risks to Chinese national security. Editor Hu Xijin (@ 胡锡进) of the hard-line Global Times published an editorial reflecting online opinion, one that "calls for China to take protection of its corporations seriously and not be afraid to take revenge against such actions. China has to make America and Europe understand that if Chinese companies encounter injustice on their turf, some of their companies will become scapegoats in China."

Web users seemed aware of the difficulty of putting such rhetoric into practice. @痒痒挠73 observed, "Many of the key systems and servers in Chinese banks are from IBM. Without IBM, domestic banks won't have a way to open accounts." Consumers may not have a choice, either. As @艾泽拉斯的银叶草 wrote, "Right now the only [mobile] operating systems are Apple and Android, and they're both American."

In addition to lamenting the practical difficulty of extricating American products from Chinese daily life, Internet users questioned their government's resolve. In response to the Global Times' strident editorial, @河南凯锋 wrote, "The question is: Does China dare? When the U.S. demanded we cease inspections of genetically modified foods, the relevant organs didn't inspect; [when] others in the U.S. admitted that they were conducting experiments with genetically-modified golden rice on Chinese children , the relevant organs over here didn't say a thing about it." @至紧要静心 complained, "The government's attitude is soft as always; why can't [they] announce in a loud voice that they're investigating whether Microsoft, IBM, Apple, [and] Cisco are threats to Chinese national security? Why can't they announce in a loud voice that China is going to bring up enterprises to replace [them]?"

In reality, American products forged in the crucible of a market economy may simply be harder to replace than Chinese products, many of them generated by businesses married in some way to the state. As @奔忙的达尔达尼昂 wrote, "All Chinese-made goods can be replaced, they don't have an essential competitiveness, how can they compare to the American imperialists?" Others blamed the U.S., and not China, for this schism. @ 不沉默的大多数 asked rhetorically, "Is America secure only when Chinese companies make hats and socks and not high-tech products?" Some argued that China would have to change first. @龙行天天下 wrote, "The U.S. will stop being this way only when the Communist Party gets out of private enterprise."

The Chinese can wish all they like, but deep reforms to the "special characteristics" of China's socialist economy remain a long way off. Meanwhile, the hoped-for boycott of American made goods is unlikely to gather steam. In addition to loving -- or needing -- American products and services, many Chinese are likely weary of blanket boycotts after recent anti-Japanese protests engulfed the country. @Joneking seemed incredulous: "We were just boycotting Japanese goods, now we're boycotting American goods?"

Perhaps it's time for China to consider more creative solutions. @勤奋蝶恋花_2008 suggested that "China should let Google, Facebook, and Twitter enter the Chinese market," hopefully inviting American reciprocity. @BrokenWindows 's suggestion was less ambitious, but more characteristic of the cynicism that pervades China's blogosphere: "It's time to bribe some U.S. senators."

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.